The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract

• #30 in Best Baseball Books

90 Reviews

Sort by: Most Helpful ▲ Date Rating

If you like baseball books, in depth analysis and have a keen interest in the history of the game ... you NEED this book.

Bill James' revision to his classic historical abstract weighs in at a hefty 1000 pages and a big price tag. But it's worth it. You really get two books.

Book I: A decade-by-decade look at the game. As James says in his preface, he's not trying to give times and dates. Each section gives the reader a feel for what baseball was like in that decade - who the popular players were, how they played, where they played. Who was the biggest player, the smallest player, which team had the best infield, best outfield, best pitchers. He gives an OJ Simpson award for each decade, a Clint Hartung award for the biggest flop, the Paul Krichell award for the dumbest trades and signings. He also details the biggest problems the game had in each decade. You can read a chapter and almost hear the fans debating Wagner vs. Cobb, commenting on what a jerk Rogers Hornsby was and venting frustration as New York teams dominated the 1950's. He also has one section on the Negro Leagues. The last section has his (brilliant) solutions to the problems the game has in the 90's.

Book II introduces James' new method of player evaluation -- Win Shares. A quantum leap forward in analysis, Win Shares quantifies everything a player contributes - pitching, hitting and defense -- in terms of how many WINS it brought his team. This corrects for park effects, different eras (you'll be surprised to learn how good those 60's hitters were) and is a massive improvement in evaluation of defense. He rates the top 100 players in history based on career value, peak value, clutch performance, etc. This top 100 includes 12 Negro League players and has some surprises (Oscar Charleston at #4). He rates the top 100 players at each position. Some of this can get dull when you get down to the low #'s. But you'll learn a lot, such as that the 1901 Beaneaters had the best pitching staff of the decade, that Arky Vaughn was the #2 all-time shortstop and that Craig Biggio and Barry Bonds are two of the best all-time at their position (this was written before Bonds' historic 2001 season and Biggio's 2001 comeback).

One last thing. Throughout the book, James' cites reference to other great baseball books. You could build an amazing baseball library just from his bibliography.

All of this comes with James' wit, insight and love of the game. He combines hard-boiled statistical analysis with an apprection of the intangible aspects of the game.

I almost fell out of my chair when I saw "The New Bill James Historical Abstract" in the bookstore. James is every baseball fan wrapped into one and has always been able to see the cold statistical side of baseball along the human side. He even talks about uniform styles and baseball players' looks, which my wife enjoys. This is the kind of book that it takes months to completly consume, the reader starts at the beginning, but then a short tale leads us to another area to compare, then off we go to another similar player who we remember,then to something else. For baseball lovers this book is a must, but for the casual fan this is also a teriffic book. I became obsessed with his 1985 "Historical Abstract" and his yearly publication when I was in my early twenties, I hope young people today find this book and share some of my experiences.

First, let me say that this is an entertaining book. It is rich in both detail and anecdote and I enjoyed reading it. It was also, unfortunately, both a dishonest book and a very disappointing book, for a number of reasons.

Other readers have already mentioning the sloppy editing, and they're right. They've mentioned the lack of a detailed explanation of the Win Shares system, and they're right about that, too. If this book had been written by anyone else, and Bill James was asked to review it, I can't imagine that he would fail to criticize any rating system that is admittedly subjective, at least in part, withhout giving any explanation of how that subjectivity was weighted. I didn't read this book to get Bill James' opinion - I read it to get his analysis.

And the presence of subjectivity is a real problem for this system because, as others have mentioned, there is ample fodder for those who feel James' is overly biased for or against some players. Maybe he really doesn't despise Rogers Hornsby, but it sure seems that way. It also seems that James decided this would be the book where he would 'get' Jim Rice. He literally didn't say a single positive thing about Rice, either as a player or as a man, and harshly labeled him the most overrated player of the last 30 years. He says nice things about Albert Belle, but not Jim Rice. Well, that's his opinion and, frankly, he probably needed a startling comment or two just to make the book more marketable. Hey, maybe Jim Rice once treated James like dirt and he has every reason to think he's a jerk.

Unfortunately, Jammes resorted to unethical behavior to get even. In his brief bio of Rice, James uses a quote by Bill Lee from Peter Golenbock's book "Fenway", in which Lee apparently says Rice was distinctly unlikeable, by fans and teammates alike. Well, that part was true, Lee really did say that to Golenbock. What James omits is Lee's glowing assessment IN THE SAME QUOTE of Rice as a player - the very thing James was supposed to be evaluating. James decided to edit that part of the quote out, save for the opening sentence, "Jim Rice was one of the best left fielders I ever had out there [but]..." That [but] is the dishonest part. Historians, which I am and James is supposed to be, are trained to use brackets to inject a clarifying word or two of their own into a quote that might otherwise not be clear. Omitted words are to be marked with an ellipsis (...) and are never supposed to alter the nature of the original quote. James violates both rules here, first by using brackets to imply that he was merely clarifying Lee's words when, in actuality, he was omitting about half of Lee's quote, and next by altering the original to such a degree that the readers are led to belive that Lee had nothing good to say about Rice at all. What's more, the quote isn't representative of the tone of Golenbock's book, in which not a single other fan, player, or manager, has anything negative to say about Jim Rice. Meanwhile, Lee slammed everyone in range, from Rice to Fred Lynn, to Denny Doyle, to Carl Yastrzemski, to Reggie Smith, to essentially every hitter on the 1974 team, while also dishonestly retelling his own failures in Game 7 of the 1975 World Series.

In short, James used a quote that wasn't representative of the book in which it was published, from a player whose own reputation as a person is laughably bad, and then manipulated and misrepresented that quote to read differently than it was originally published. It's intellectual dishonesty, and I think James knows it.

If you want to be entertained, then please go ahead and read "The New Abstract", but please don't take it as serious history, because it isn't. It's one man's clearly biased view of the baseball world, and he'll take a lot of liberties with the truth to get you to agree with him.

The great classic returns in somewhat different form.

The original version was James' greatest achievement and belongs on a short list of the most essential baseball books ever written. And the new version?

Most of the new book has been completely rewritten, yet it retains the same flavor as the original. If pressed, I prefer the earlier edition. This is partly because I read it often in the last decade and thus am somewhat biased in its favor, but also because James' new rating system - Win Shares - is introduced in only in general, without demonstrating the nuts and bolts. James promises that his next book (out next year?) will tell us a lot more about this interesting and probably excellent system, but in the meantime we have to take Win Shares on faith.

However, this reservation pales next to the excellence of the book. The historical overview and the player rankings are a tour de force, as before. In particular, the ranking section is much more ambitious and comprehensive, with many more comments than before.

This is one of those books that is more fun to read by skipping from place to place rather than from cover to cover.

Note: this is actually the 3rd edition of this book. The "original" was actually two very similar editions - a 1985 hardcover and a 1988 paperback.

Here are some things I particularly liked:

* Decade-by-decade outlines of the game.
* Greatly expanded capsule lists of odds and ends in each decade.
* Sidebars descibing interesting events and stories from each decade.
* New 1980s, 1990s, and Negro Leagues chapters. The Negro Leagues chapter is the best addition to Section 1, the historical overview.
* Comments and reasoning about the 100 greatest players overall in addition to raw list.
* Vastly expanded section 2 - now there there are 100 greatest cited at each position (instead of 25 or 50), most of them with substantial comments and/or stories.
* Fielding overview - James clearly explains why traditional fielding statistics mislead.
* The stories and narratives keep the book from revolving around statistics.
* Excellent new articles about the Union Association, the greatest teams ever, the best way to use a relief pitcher, power pitchers, the future of the game, and more.
* Excellent returning articles on the Black Sox era scandals, the evolution of the minors, catchers blocking the plate, and more.

Here are some things I wish were different:

* The layout in the old book was more informal, part of its charm.
* Some outstanding articles from the old book - such as those on the 1912 World Series, platooning, and the history of relief pitching - are gone.
* The old book's glossary is omitted. New readers should have a place to check exactly what "secondary average" and "the pythagorean method" mean.
* The old Section 3 was a reference section showing major players' yearly records, including fielding, hit-by-pitch (omitted from most references!), notes, and more. The new Section 3 replaces this with Win Shares by year for major players. While most of this is available in Total Baseball, it was useful to have it here.
* In the old book, James goes to some length to describe his Runs Created and Offensive Winning Percentage methods, and proves their accuracy. In the old hardcover, he takes Pete Palmer and John Thorn to task for not likewise proving their Linear Weights method. But in the new book, he mentions that there are new, more advanced Runs Created formulas but does not say what they are. Likewise, I must reserve judgement about Win Shares.
* In the old book, James strongly asserts that a player must be ranked for his peak and career value separately. He has two separate lists for each position because it's "an unavoidable concern," and "I think it's silly to try and put them together." In the new book, he does put them together. He is certainly entitled to change his mind, however since he so emphasized this point in the old book, I would like to hear why he changed it.
* The book's tone at times assumes the reader is familiar with James' earlier works. This may disconcert new readers.

James is a brilliant baseball historian. By sharing his insights into the game, many people, including myself, view it through different eyes. He communicates the grand sweep of the game's history very well, and his player evaluations, already fascinating and sometimes amusing, are now much more comprehensive. His statistical innovations have revolutionized baseball analysis.

The only real drawback to this edition is that it sometimes assumes the reader has read James' earlier work. I'm not sure new readers will accept Runs Created or Win Shares, and they may wonder about the meaning of some of James' terms.

My introduction to Bill James was the 1988 edition of this book. I had no problem understanding it, including his explanation of Runs Created and Offensive Winning Percentage. I was impressed enough to read all of his other books out at the time and obtain his later books as they appeared. (I particularly recommend his books on the Hall of Fame and on managers.) If this edition was my introduction to Bill James, I might be less enthusiastic.

My reservations about this book are minor compared to my admiration for this achievement. This is a magnificent overview of baseball's history and its greatest players. This book is too good to get less than five stars.

Bill James is famous for his ability to collect, publish and analyze statistics about baseball. This is the second edition of his history book covering through the entire 20th century. But as James says in his preface this is more than just an update. In reviewing the first book he found that he didn't like a number of things that he did and so he has changed. Some may think for the better others for the worse but in my case I never read his 1980s edition so I have no basis for comparisons.
James is not a professional statistician but has good statistical intuition and is respected by professional statistician who specialize in sports statistics.

James covers the rules of the game and is very detialed about the players and the rule changes and strategy changes. What I enjoyed most about the book was his lists of the all time top 100 players at each position. This is something sports statisticians think about often and using statistical adjustment techniques and Bayesian methods professional statistician like Schell and Berry have written articles and in Schell's case a book on how to do this. Schell's book includes a list of the all time greatest hitters with Tony Gwynn at the top. The book tells you how the list is constructed and teaches statistical methods along the way.

James has no formal statistical method for constructing his lists. At each position he ranks the top 100 players and does a good job of mixing the old timers with the present day players. Though subjective, this is a difficult task for anyone and James is one of the few who knows enough detail of the history and players in baseball to be up to the task. I may not agree with all of his rankings but that is part of what makes talking about baseball fun. James provides descriptions of the players on his list that may be thought of as justification for their inclusion or rank.

The list of number 1 players by position is as follows:
1. catcher - Yogi Berra
2. pitcher - Walter Johnson
3. 1st base - Lou Gehrig
4. 2nd base - Joe Morgan
5. shortstop - Honus Wagner
6. 3rd base - Mike Schmidt
7. left field - Ted Williams
8. center field - Willie Mays
9. right field - Babe Ruth

The American Statistical Association formed a section SIS (Statistics in Sports). I am a member and so are many other statisticians including Carl Morris, Hal Stern, Mike Schell, Jim Albert, Jay Bennett and Scott Berry. We all have the common ground of interest in sports (particularly baseball). The introduction of true statistical methods in sports has turned sports partly intp a science. Mike Schell wrote a statistics book about statistical adjustment of individual player statistics based on the effect of the home ball park. Albert and Bennett have also contributed books. Efron and Morris long before this movement was in full force wrote a major statistical paper for the Journal of the American Statistical Association that used predicting baseball player averages using Stein shrinking estimator (an Empirical Bayes estimator).

It is books like this that amass large amounts of baseball data and use baseball knowledge and common sense ot look at the game in a differnt way.

Although I like this book, I have to admit I'm disappointed. The first version had ratings on fewer players, but had much more depth on them. There were longer treatises on many players, and tremendous statistical backup to support the ratings. This book rates over 1000 players, but because Bill James rates so many, the comments on each are much more limited. I would have preferred to see more in-depth write-ups on the top 25 or 50 players at each position, than thumbnails on 100 players at each position (reading a short passage on Jake Stenzel, the 89th-best right fielder, and Hubie Brooks, the 89th-best 3rd baseman, is less interesting than an in-depth discussion of Cal Ripken vs. Honus Wagner).

Bill James's new Win Shares system seems fascinating; however, all we see on each player are totals. How does Willie Mays stack up defensively against Ty Cobb? We aren't told of details like this, except occasionally in the comments. There is some comment about a book called Win Shares, and perhaps when this comes out (has it already?) we'll know the answers to these questions, but right now, you get to see only Bill's totals. I trust the guy - his systems usually make sense, but I think we need to see more of these details in this book, rather than ratings of players like Pinky Whitney and Lyn Lary. Even a short section that gives defensive and offensive values would improve the book.

I have the impression that this is more of a work in progress, and that Bill will make adjustments to it when he has time.

The original 2001 "New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract," which makes up the bulk of this 2003 edition, is a fantastic book, perhaps James' magnum opus. If someone said that no baseball library is complete without this book, he would be wrong. No baseball library is adequate without this book.

However, there is no reason for owners of the 2001 edition to consider buying the new edition. There's really nothing new here. Well, sure, James has added a few pages of new material, but it's not very good and it does not add anything substantive to any of the myriad topics raised in the book's 2001 text. Most of the genuinely new material consists of James' corrections. But the editors of the new edition have not actually made any of these corrections to the text itself. For example, James writes that he erred in saying that the 1914 A's had history's best infield, judged by Win Shares; a mathematical error led him to overlook the 1913 A's, whose infielders earned even more Win Shares. But page 548 still lists the 1914 A's as the Win Sharingest infield of all time.

Most infuriatingly of all, James casually mentions in this edition that all index references to pages after 945 were off by a page in the previous edition. But the new edition does not correct this error; the new index is just as wrong as it was in the old edition. So when you go to look up John Dopson, the index tells you to look on page 956. Only his name does not appear there; it appears on page 957.

Here, then, is something innovative: A reference book that cannot be referred to, and a new edition that mentions but does not correct errors in the previous edition.

All in all, this might be the sorriest excuse for a "new edition" in recent publishing history. Considered in the abstract, "The New Bill James Historical Abstract" deserves five stars. But considered as an updated edition of a classic, the 2003 version deserves no stars at all.

I like this book, but I must caution the prospective buyer that Bill James is an acquired taste, even for fans of advanced baseball statistics.

The most ironic thing about James is that he has been for the past 25 years the vanguard of a group that seeks, among other things, to examine the game of baseball objectively by using numbers instead of impressions, gut feelings, etc. Yet for all of the statistics in the book, much of it is dedicated to VERY opinionated commentaries that
1) are somtimes very amusing,
2) but are often pure demagoguery
3) and read like an extended weblog
4) because they are irratic in length and quality of argument
5) and have too many annoying lists of points like this one.

With all of that being said, the dedicated baseball fan who can take the obnoxious side of James with a grain of salt will find this a rewarding read.

In his updated version of his classic historical abstract, Bill James dazzles us with his usual analytical genius. Howvever, from the perspective of someone who has internalized the logic and axioms of the original work, this book comes as something of a surprise if not a disappointment. James seems to have abandoned many of the positions he argued passionately in the original book. As an example, one of the fundamentals of the original book was that no reasonable discussion about player rankings could be undertaken unless one first stipulated whether one was discussing "carreer value" or "peak value". In the new work, James disregards this premise and replaces it with one-dimensional player rankings based on his new "win shares" system. While he explains how his rankings are designed to capture elements of both career and peak value, the very notion of combining them was something he regarded as silly in his original book. Having expected to find his original rankings in their original form updated to reflect the players of the last 15 years, this came as a shock.

I've been buying Bill James' books since the first nationwide Abstract and have been hooked on him for two decades. His insights are remarkable and the new historical abstract is no exception. It must have been an enormous task to rate over a hundred players at each position. As great as the book is, however, it has the same consistent flaws that James is noted for:

1) He does not give the formulas for Win Shares. I am sure that we would all love to see it.

2) His subjective analysis is EXTREMELY subjective. While the Negro League stars were certainly great players, it is impossible to place them in a top 100 with absolute certainty. How can one use statistical analysis as the gospel in one case while throwing it away in another? The great stars of the Negro Leagues are not worse players; it is like comparing apples to oranges.

3) His personal biases are transparent. His hatred of Rogers Hornsby is almost pathological. He seems to delight in finding any way possible to downgrade his greatness at all costs. His analysis of Joe Morgan is downright obsequious, notwithstanding the little barb thrown at him in the end. Morgan was not a great defensive second baseman. He was sure-handed, but his range was below average. Many observers believe Morgan (like so many others) won those Gold Gloves with his bat. James also assigns somewhat undue greatness on multifaceted talent, and appears irritated that everyone else disagrees with him on Hornsby. James uses statistics like a drunk uses a lamppost; for support rather than illumination. As great as Little Joe was, it appears that James' evaluation of him was done with an agenda in mind: to exalt him at Hornsby's expense. He is sensitive about arrogance, yet he does not seem to recognize the arrogance in rating a player to be FAR worse than anyone else's rating. If everyone thinks Hornsby is in the Top 10 of all players, it is NOT because they do not care about defense. Bill, if Babe Ruth was a second baseman, he would be the best of all time. There is just too much, and I could give a rat's behind how much of a jerk he was.

4. He gives credit where credit is due for players who miss seasons for reasons beyond their control, but does not do so for banned players. We are not talking about morality in evaluating players; we are talking about abilities. It is just as valid to factor in what Buck Weaver would have done had he continued playing as it would be for Joe D. Again, he does this because he injects his morality into the equation.

Bill James could care less what I think, and he did not write the book to cater to me. Those are his opinions, and he is entitled to it. When his next book comes out, I will dutifully purchase it, enjoy it from page to dog-eared page, and call him on my disagreements. I will also tell you, however, that I learned much more about how to view history (and how not to) from reading James than I ever did in college. Keep it coming, Bill.

This book is nowhere near as good as the original classic. There are too many players rated, and too few insights into those players. It is riddled with typos and the win shares system is not well explained. The author also appears to have become deluded or is just not too bright (several of his little non-baseball essays indicate the latter).

He tells us that the best active player in baseball at the turn of the decade was Craig Biggio. Getting hit by a lot of pitches and bunting well cancel out the home runs that Barry Bonds and Ken Griffey Jr. hit. His response to those with the temerity to question this nonsense: "Craig Biggio is better. The fact that nobody seems to realize this ... well, that's not my problem."

But of course it is his problem. When a system names a player to be the best in baseball and every expert on the game disagrees, the fault is not with the whole world, but with the system. If a geopolitical formula named France the leading economic and military power in the world in 2000-- it would not make it so, it would mean that the formula was flawed.

This book breaks down to an overview of baseball history that only stands out because there's no real competition. The first section of the book goes decade by decade through the history of the game. However while noone would doubt that Bill James knows his stuff, it's presented extremely poorly. He'll make a number of claims about the best pitcher, the best turnaround, etc., that are complete trivia as they're not put in any larger context. I know far more about baseball history than is useful, but simply stating that the best pitching staff of the 1900's was the 1901 Beaneaters, without talking about either the team or the staff, is just useless information.

In the second part of the book, which is more interesting, Bill James going through who he considers the top hundred players at each position. While sometimes insightful, this section is entirely piecemeal. Bill James talks about who he wants to talk about, and while he sometimes says quite a bit about the player, he often has little to say. Also, he is given to wildly overblown prose that is frequently embarassing. I can't imagine reading his lengthy take on Hal Chase with a straight face.

And I can't write a review without at least mentioning Bill James's tendency to dive into wild unrelated rants. He goes on and on about how, say, the concept of karma is a bunch of BS. It's unimaginable to me that an editor wouldn't strike these rants out of the book.

Bill James is famous for his use of statistical analysis of baseball. However statistical analysis of baseball has become much more commonplace since my 1984 edition of this book, and Bill James has actually included quite a bit less information on statistical analysis than that earlier edition! Unless you are totally new to the idea, I just don't see this book as being a very good look at the subject.

As most of the content on pre 80's baseball is exactly duplicated from that earlier edition, I don't think there's a reason for people who own the 1984 edition to buy this edition - and there's not much reason to read this rather than sports biographies, if you have an interest in the history of the game.

I waited with such excitement and enthusiasm for this book. At worst I thought okay, we now get a section on the 1990's. At best, we now get a section on the 1990's. What happened to the original books content? Most of it is gone! In it's place are meaningless and useless evaluations of players who simply only took up a position in the field and did nothing of note or glamour to differentiate themselves from the very ground they played on. In otherwords...So what!

Is this what I waited the better half of a decade for? Don't get me wrong, the book is still good, but not as great as it's predecessor, not even close. I must rate this book a 3 for shock factor alone. In trying to make a great book even greater, Bill James messed with a winning formula and it exploded in his face.

I was going to buy this book, expensive as it is. However, after sitting down for four hours and going over it...I'll take a pass. Mediocre effort of a re-write of a masterpiece. I'll settle for my old book. Much more fun and informative.

James's long-awaited update of his seminal 1985 work is finally here, and is indeed a treasure for anyone's baseball book shelf. The decade-by-decade reviews, which are exceptionally educational and fun to read, have been updated through the 80s and 90s. The player ratings have been greatly expanded and now include the top 100 at each position. This is an outstanding book - the best baseball text to come out in a long time.

That said, in my opinion many of the changes James made to the original are disappointing. First, he has removed some of the most interesting stories from the original decade summaries. If you have the original, this is not such a loss, but for those who don't already have it, this text is missing some important insightful reporting. Second, in the original, James was explicit in making the point that ranking players is highly dependent on whether the criteria is peak value (that is, how great was a player at his best) or career value (how great was a player over the totality of his career). This distinction was a breakthrough; to the best of my knowledge, no one had explicitly created this delineation before. Unfortunately, that distinction is nowhere to be found in the original. Whereas in the 1985 book, James presented two top-ten lists at each position, one for peak value and one for career value, in this version he has conflated the two somewhat arbitrarily. And he gives no explanation for backing away from his original stance. This is particularly curious since he was adamant about the point fifteen years ago.

A third quibble: James has created a new tool for player evaluation, something called win shares. He apparently has a detailed book coming out on the subject next year. Unfortunately, he gives precious little explanation of the tool in this text, especially its use in evaluating defense. Yet he clearly uses win shares as the overriding methodology for his final rankings. The reader is left feeling that there is something hidden behind the curtain. I would have been happier had he published the win shares book first, even if that meant delaying this one by a year. On the same point, James makes some (in my opinion) questionable tactical decisions in his analysis. While this is not the forum for a complete critique of his methods, I am far from certain that his evaluations of offensive performance have improved in the intervening decade and a half. Defense is another story; he is clearly quite proud of the leap forward he has made in defensive evaluation. But again, the reader is teased because James provides very little explanation of exactly what he is done, and we are left to take a lot on faith.

Please don't misunderstand the above criticisms. This is an outstanding contribution to the study of baseball history. You will learn more from this book than from all the others on the shelf at your local B&N combined. If James has not quite cleared the exceptionally high hurdle I have set for him, based on his own previous performances, he still outleaps virtually every other contributor to the field. Well worth the ...

.... but not quite as ground-breaking as the original edition.

Overall, it is a definitive book to have on your baseball shelf. James rates many more players than he did in 1987 and introduces a new statistic called "Win Shares" from which most findings are based. I was disappointed with his explanation for wins shares theory and even more frustrated to learn that you had to buy the "Win Shares" companion piece [not cheap] just to understand his derivations. The preface/introduction in the historical abstract does not fully describe the intricacies of the method (particularly for defensive win shares), making it difficult to appreciate his conclusions. His finding that Craig Biggio is the 35th greatest player of all time, for example, is met with skepticism because the reader is not given complete proof. Yes, we know Biggio can create runs -- that is a Jamesian throwback -- but how precisely do these runs contribute to wins? The reader won't know all the details until he purchases the "Win Shares" volume.......

Some of James' conclusions arbitrarily deviate from the quantitative analyses. He goes to the trouble of developing a systematic approach for win shares but then does not do us the service of explaining why certain players rate higher than their individual values would indicate (see Don Mattingly). Such deviations do not lend confidence to a value scheme which Mr. James himself is VERY fond of.

James' latest work has numerous strengths. While some critics have found fault with the rating system used in this book as compared to the rating system used in his previous Historical Abstract, he explains his system pretty well. The book's biggest flaw lies in James' repeated digressions from the topic at hand.

James, for example, rates Ron Santo ahead of Brooks Robinson at third base. Since Robinson is almost universally considered to have been the better player, a detailed comparison of the 2 players was warranted. Instead, James spends his entire Robinson comment explaining why he thinks that middle infielders are generally nicer people than left fielders are.

When James sticks to baseball as a sport, he is as brilliant as ever. His evaluation of the 1961 Yankees, for example, is a work of genius. He breaks new ground in his analysis of defensive statistics. He has a series of thoughtful essays about the relationship between pitchers' strikeout rates and career length, about the best use of relief pitchers, and about the decline of the free minor leagues.

Unfortunately, James spends far too much time analyzing baseball as a morality play. He refers to Joe Morgan, for example, as "a self-important little prig." It is not possible to evaluate the likes of Cobb, Ruth, or Hornsby without addressing their personal characteristics, but it is preferable to stick to professional characteristics when evaluating the vast majority of players.

James, in short, swings for the fences in this book. When he connects the ball travels a long way, but he misses more often here than he has in his past work.

The New Historical Baseball Abstract isn't a perfect book. It has way too many typographical errors. Bill James's wonderfully cogent analysis sometimes gives way to moralistic railing about the state of the world today (his mini-essay on "professionalism" in the Steve Carlton entry veers into a critique of the Great Society), some of which has little to do with the topic at hand.

The biggest flaw is the introduction of Win Shares, his new statistic that rates the overall worth of a player's contribution, counting it as a percentage of the team's overall victory total. It isn't straightforward enough to explain; in fact, it isn't explained in full at all. For that we have to wait for a book called Win Shares, to be published in the spring.

Bill James has no peer as a logical writer, analyst or researcher, so I'm quite confident (...).

The first section, The Game, is largely similar to previous editions of the book, with the welcome addition of a series of essays called The Greatest Team What Ever Was, which discusses different ways of evaluating which teams are the greatest in history. He reaches no final conclusions (though, oddly, he never mentions the 1939 Yankees as one of the best one or two teams ever, which the recent Baseball Dynasties unequivocally does), but it's plenty entertaining.

James's writing remains uniquely satisfying. He can switch between withering sarcasm and groan-worthy punning, between thoughtful analysis and curt dismissal, like no other writer. The comments about Cecil Fielder's and George Scott's weight are alone worth the price of the book.

Finally, James's book makes you want to read more good baseball writing. For some worthy titles to take on, just pay attention to the excerpts he cites. I know I'll be buying Whitey Herzog's You're Missing a Great Game and Mike Sowell's The Pitch That Killed, right away.

I have been a big fan of Bill James for 15+ years, so it with regret that I cannot recommend purchasing this book (especially at [the price]). Since the flaws in it are too many to enumerate, I will confine myself to a few key points. I do not understand how so many other readers can give this book 5 stars. It falls short of his previous excellence. A few of my criticisms of the book are:

1. In his (superior) first abstract, he makes it crystal clear that you can not combine peak and career value for baseball players and for every position has rankings divided accordingly. Here, he suddenly combines the two with no explanation whatsoever. Since he makes this such a crucial point in Book I, this change absolutely called for an explanation. If he changed his mind, fine, but let's hear why.

2. Too much inconsistency. For instance, he ranks Roger Clemens ahead of Sandy Koufax in the 100 greatest Players of all-time section, but has Koufax ahead of Clemens in his ranking of the 100 greatest pitchers. Also, Mark McGwire was one of the greatest players of all time, but Cecil Fielder is just a "fat guy who hit home runs." Right, we know what a great fielder and baserunner Big Mac was through his career.

3. In his first volume, he ranks (correctly, in my view), Lefty Grove as the greatest pitcher of all time. He shrugs off Walter Johnson's advocates with the following point: dead-ball pitchers could pitch more innings because there were no home runs. Solid argument, Bill. So why did you put Johnson ahead this time? Shouldn't you at least explain why you were wrong the first time? The answer,I think, is his over-reliance on his career Win Shares statistic. Sometimes, you have to use common sense over pure stats. I didn't see that in this book.

Maybe James spoiled me with the first historical baseball abstract. That was a truly terrific book. This one, to be sure, has some interesting and insightful points. It's not a bad book, and if you have a half hour to kill, why not browse it at your library or bookstore. It just isn't up to the high level of excellence that James demonstrated in his first book.

Bill James combines analysis, facts, and opinions, seamlessly into this informative and entertaining volume. It should be on the bookshelf of both the intense and casual baseball fan. It is a pleasure to read, but, with nearly 1000 pages, it takes some time. It can be read straight through, or can be picked up anywhere that seems interesting.

Part 1 provides a historical perspective of the game, decade by decade. It includes the changes in the game, the uniforms, the players, the ball parks, and many thumbnail sketches of different events in each decade-and much more. You want to know about the game in the 1930s, just turn the book to that area, and you will find much of what you are looking for.

The biggest part of the book, well more than half, is Part 2, however. It provides player ratings of the top 100 players at each position, and the top 100 players of all time. These selections are based on a system developed by James, which he calls "win-shares." While not fully explained (we have to wait until spring 2002 for the full explanation in a book to be published), it seems to me to be an excellent rating system. He gets win-shares for each player, than uses a different system to rank the players. The ranking system is heavily balanced toward peak performance (as opposed to entire careers) and is bound to cause controversy among fans. He also throws in (as he admits) his own personal opinion from time-to-time in these rankings. Otherwise, why would George Brett rank higher than Eddie Mathews at third base, when Mathews has higher win-share scores? The big problem I have with the rankings is that James does not usually explain why he chooses to rank some players higher than others, despite their lower win-share scores. Hey, Bill, why does John Olerud rank lower than about 20 players who have lower win-share scores? And why does Eddie Murray rank higher than Willie McCovey?

Still, the book is well worth the price. James writes well, keeping the book interesting throughout. And a little controversy, or disagreement, does not diminish the book in any way.

I've been a big fan of Bill James for a long time and the New Version of the Historical Abstract didn't disappoint. Any fan of baseball history will love this book. James' is a great writer and his approach to studying the game is, as always, fascinating. I loved the comments on Negro Leagues, Minor Leagues, evolution of the game, the game's politics, explanation of the post-1993 hitting explosion... You don't have to agree w/ all of James arguments, but his insights are at worst, great food for thought. I liked his suggestions for changes to the game that would lessen the impact of homeruns and strikeouts - too bad nobody at MLB is listening.

The majority of the book is dedicated to introducing his *Win Shares* system and ranking the greatest players of all time. Win Shares is a great approach, but not without flaws. Win Shares are based upon a team's actual Wins - an odd choice considering James was the guy who invented the formula for projecting a team's *Pythagorean* wins. Using actual wins unfortunately distorts some of James' arguments. I noticed this in his discussion of the 1961 Cincinnati Reds where he used Win Shares to illustrate the dramatic improvement in performance by players on the '61 NL pennant winning team. James obviously knows that the 1960 Reds UNDERperformed their pythagorean projection by 5 games, while the 1961 team OVERperformed their pythagorean by 11 games. Yes, the players got better, but they also got a lot luckier. That James would select such an obviously distorted example is disturbing.

Wins Shares also shows Ted Williams 1946 season to be over 20% better than his 1941 season (when he hit .406). Because of the relatively low offensive levels in 1946, you can make a reasonable argument that Williams was as good or even slightly better in '46, but not 20% better! The big difference in Win Shares for the two seasons results from the team's performance - not Williams. This flaw in James evaluation method makes Win Shares (like the often ridiculed RBI statistic) highly dependent on the context of the team's performance. It's a great approach, but it still needs more work.

Finally, James continues the hatchet job on Dick Allen that he started in his Hall Of Fame book. Dick Allen was without question one of the top 25 hitters in the entire history of major league baseball and Bill James knows that. There's only so much that a big ego and a weak glove can take away from you. Shame on you Bill.

The nitpicking notwithstanding, Bill James New Historical Baseball Abstract is a MUST READ for any serious baseball fan.

I bought the original when it came out years ago, and read it, and read it, and read it until it's spine cracked and pages started falling out. This time I bought the hardcover edition (buy whatever edition you can get your hands on, and can afford) and have read it, and read it, and read it; but thanks to hardcover binding it is not falling apart. One of the most fun aspects of this version is seeing how James has used his Win Shares method of evaluating performance to rank players by position. (By the way, the book Win Shares is an absolute classic, and should be purchased with this book, if at all possible.) For example, if you were to look strictly at the numbers you may say that Ty Cobb or Tris Speaker (or even the Mick) was the greatest center fielder of them all; but armed with his Win Shares method he makes you seriously consider that it has to be Willie Mays. I certainly have no argument against James's evaluation, but with Win Shares there seems to be a more logical, statistical basis for that judgment than by comparing raw numbers (not that Willie Mays needs to apologize for anything; he did after all have some huge seasons while playing at Candlestick park. How would he have done, I wonder, playing the last half of his career in Atlanta?) If you are a baseball fan, young or old, buy this book and get a wonderful overview of baseball history.

The Historical Baseball Abstract is one of the most important books ever written about baseball. It covers the history of the Major Leagues in a very enlightening and entertaining way. This book puts the lie to the image of Bill James as a number-crunching statistician. Stats are only part of this book - it's also full of interesting historical information, insights into personalities and commentary about players and teams.

This version of the Historical Abstract is considerably different from the original. In my opinion, it's worth having both.

This is the most interesting baseball book I've ever seen. There are nearly a thousand mini-biographies of players throughout history. It really brings these old names to life, attaching personalities and events to names in the baseball encyclopedias.

Bill James stresses the player's performance in relation to the era and ballpark he played in. Someone who hit .280 for the Dodgers in the 1960s is given more credit than someone who hit .300 in a hitter's park in a hitter's era.

He also emphasizes the value of walks, singles, and leadoff hitters. These players rarely make it to the Hall of Fame, but they are the reason for Hack Wilson's incredible single season RBI record. You've got to have men on base in order to drive in runs. One of his points is that RBIs are overrated, and runs scored are underrated.

Though I enjoy his writing style, I have one complaint. He often uses the phrase "as most of you know". Usually it is followed by a fact I didn't know. With only slight exaggeration, I'll make up an example.

As most of you know, Spook Jacobs had 131 hits in his rookie season for the Philadelphia Athletics in 1954.

So it leaves us thinking What?????????????????? We were supposed to know that?

Bill, most of us have jobs. You don't. You do baseball for a living.

Anyway, this is a very interesting book and Bill James is a brilliant baseball analyst and good storyteller except for that one annoying habit.

Bill James has done it again, with a marvelous history of baseball that includes dozens of vignettes, baseball history new to all but baseball scholars, and a fascinating look at the 100 best players of all time. This is a book that is three things at once: an essential reference work when you're learning about players of the past; a book you can pick up, open to any page and read a few paragraphs when you've got the time; and a book you'll want to read from cover to cover to ensure you don't miss any of the great information it contains.

Although it draws the most attention through its ranking of the 100 greatest players of all time and the 100 greatest players of all time at each position, that's only a fraction of the book. James follows the history of baseball, decade by decade, that talks about how, where, and by who the game was played. For each decade there's also a chart with notes on attendance, home field advantage, which teams were having their best and worst decades, and much more. If you're interested in the history of baseball, this is the place to start, to get a baseline for how it evolved.

James also has scattered tens of short demi-articles discussing various topics relevant to each decade. What will baseball be like in the future? Why were the 1910s baseball's decade of greed? The answers to these questions and dozens of others are covered in James' work.

James has an easy to read, conversational writing style that makes the book a pleasure. And while James does cover his share of sabrmetrics, his love of the game covers far more than statistics. If you love baseball, you'll love this book. If you enjoy baseball, you'll love it even more when you're done here.

Finding this at the bookstore was like getting a bonus Christmas present. The sheer size of the book nearly made me pass it up as it resembled a baseball encyclopedia (and how often do you need to look at the 1981 season for Barry Bonnell?). But when I opened it ... magic! It was text and anecdotes from the smartest baseball fan, Bill James.

I had to resist the urge to try reading the entire book in one sitting. The anecdotes are entertaining and the explanations he gives for his rankings is outstanding. His reason for ranking so many Negro League players as highly as he did was something I have argued for years. It was nice to see it in print.

I would have liked to have seen a review of all the mathematical formulas he has used in the past to determine various things, but the lack of that simply gives me an excuse to buy his old Abstracts online.

The only complaint is a real minor one. You know how some small thing sticks in your craw and you just can't let it go? In his catcher rankings, James did not have Benito Santiago among his top 100 catchers of all time. Now, I'm not a Santiago fan, but I remember the Bruce Benedict "glory years" and anyone in their right mind would have traded Benedict in favor of Santiago in a heartbeat. Nothing against Eggs, but Santiago hit for more power, a better average (most seasons) and had a better arm. I can only think this was an oversight on Mr. James' part ... and, again, it's pretty minor. But if that's the only real complaint, that should tell you how strong the book is. Unquestionably, the best money I've spent on a book in years.

I'm not the first person to remark that this book isn't nearly as good as the original and I won't be the last. Why? Well the main reason is the whole Win Shares fiasco. Players are ranked based mainly on an uberstat and 5 months later we still don't know how this stat is calculated. James would never have accepted that approach from someone else; why should we accept it from him?

Mind you the book is still good. It just could have been better.

The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract introduces a novel new way to evaluate players: The Win Shares System. What is revolutionary about the system is that it does not use statistics that are subject to variation as the game changes. It is based on how many games a player helps his team win, based on his performance. Since the ratio of win shares to wins is always 3-1, the system treats good players on bad teams as equally as bad players on good teams. James has also created the first effective system to measure fielding prowess. But most of all, it allows us to fairly look at players across eras, in one single integer. The system is brilliant. James application of it, however, is not. First, it does not evenly rate pitchers vs hitters. Pitchers are arbitrarily assigned one fourth of all win shares, hitters one half, and fielders one fourth. The numbers are not necessarily an accurate reflection of relative importance. But the system does allow for fair assessment of hitters vs. hitters. In evaluating hitters, James creates a six-step system to include all relevant data. Simply adding up raw win shares and rating the players against each other does not work, according to James. As proof of this, he cites the fact that Rusty Staub has almost as many Win Shares as Joe Dimaggio. So to even it out, he weighs a players three best seasons, five best consecutive seasons, and win shares per 162 games. It is these three values that skew his system, but more on this later. His fifth element is a time line adjustment, and the sixth a subjective element. The time line adjustment is a good factor, since players get better over time, but it is weighed a bit too heavily. And the there is a better way to deal with the sixth factor. The problem with the 2,3, and 4 factors is that they overate a players prime, while vastly underrating his career stats. This leads to some skewed ratings of players. James himself admits to one: His system rates Mickey Mantle higher than Ty Cobb, mostly since Mantle's prime numbers were so good. Similarly, the system underrates Hank Aaron, while overrating Honus Wagner, and overrates Mark McGwire while undervaluing Eddie Murray. The reason these three variables were introduced was to compensate for a situation that rarely occurs: Players like Dimaggio missing significant time due to wartime service. A better system would look at total win shares while extrapolating what a player would have done in the years he missed, based on performance before and after the time missed. This would give us a rough total win shares, while not overcompensating for peak values. There is no inherent reason why peak values are more important than total values. Longevity is a key factor in rating a players total worth. The only exceptions are players who hang around late in their careers to pad their stats, like Pete Rose and Rickey Henderson. One may argue that guessing what a player would have done is unscientific. Surely it is. But it is far better than skewing an entire system to accommodate for a couple of players who missed time.

It is a requirement of any real baseball fan to have this book in their library.

The first section of the book focuses on the history of the game, decade-by-decade. James presents a very readable and enjoyable view of strategy evolution, baseball economics, and throws in a few odds and ends for good measure.

The second section rates the top 100 players at each position and includes short (sometimes lengthy) comments for each player. The section also provides a general description of the "Win Shares" system that is the basis for the player ratings.

The third section of the book is a reference section containing statistics and Win Share data for several teams of varying quality.

If you've never read James before, you'll understand why he is the greatest baseball writer of our time. James mixes insightful analysis, personal opinion, and humor to create an enjoyable reading experience. A big plus for the book is the structure. The book is designed for those who want to read about how baseball was played in the 1930's, then skip over to find out who James ranks as the 53rd best 2nd baseman.

Readers of the original Historical Baseball Abstract or the yearly Baseball Abstracts will probably be somewhat disappointed by this edition. After all, the first edition of this book is one of the greatest baseball books ever written.

Personally I prefer the first section of the book. I am more interested in the history of platooning or the evolution of the minor leagues than who is ranked as the 87th best left fielder. Unfortunately, the first section of the book has not changed a whole lot from the first edition, and the more interesting articles are edited or eliminated entirely. The new section on the Negro Leagues and the series of articles on the greatest all-time team are notable exceptions.

My opinion on the player rating section is mixed. It's nice to be reminded that Don Money played baseball, or to read about players like Johnny Bassler (who knew anything about him?). On the other hand, the best part of the first edition was the controversy over the player ratings. In this book, James is much more factual than argumentative (maybe he's softening up), plus the most interesting part of the first edition, the Peak Value vs. Career Value argument, is no longer included in the book.

But it is still Bill James. Read it, think it, agree or disagree, but most of all enjoy.

So the WinShares concept might need a shard more explanation? So be it. It hardly detracts from the essential enough point that baseball's designated diagnostician has seen and raised his previous masterwork by quite a few notches. He never fails to instruct, challenge, provoke, delight, and amuse.

The historical sections have been bolstered just right and remain as engaging as they are revealing; the players' sections include both intriguing anecdotes, a few striking revelations, and some very acute analyses of their values. He also, wisely, rolled a few choice essays over from the previous edition, most notably his striking essay on the contemptible Hal Chase, which he changed not one syllable and bless him for that - Chase was probably the most corrupt baseball player of his and most eras.

My only regret: that Mr. James didn't include with this edition that which so enhanced the player ratings sections the last go round, the more detailed career charts. And, since he does allude to this in several points, I would have loved to see an array of the prime clutch hitters of all time, defining clutch hitting as who hits how and with what from the sixth inning onward and particularly in the final two innings (and, by the way, Joe Carter DOES have a reputation for clutch hitting out of all proportion to his actual performance, and you can look it up).

But why complain about a few missing peas when the prime rib is so delectable and the salad just the right mix - and, by the way, Tom Seaver WAS a better pitcher than Nolan Ryan, Eddie Murray WAS a better player than Willie McCovey, Darrell Evans WAS better than Tony Perez, and the 1961 Yankees are probably one of the most overrated teams of them all.

Put Bill James on your shelf right alongside Roger Angell and Thomas Boswell. They are the best baseball writers alive (Red Smith, alas, is dead).

Not sure What Bill James was smoking, but his WinShares system is so biased it isn't funny.

Get to the pitchers section. See his rankings? You'll find Seaver at #8 and Ryan at #24. Wait a minute...wasn't he saying he needed a system that didn't punish poor teams and over-reward good teams? Does run support (per pitcher, not team) matter? Does being effective over a longer period of time matter?

So when I read the write-ups, they seemed like an NCAA basketball selection committee...basically he'll use one set of reasons for putting a guy higher, and not mention those same, applicable good reasons for putting another guy lower.

Start by saying to yourself...if the job of a batter is to produce runs (not just HR, BB, bunt, SB), then the converse is true for pitchers...it's to NOT produce runs (not just limiting h, bb, HR, etc.).

Read the first half of the book (about each decade) and that's good. His WinShares system is garbage.

I think the main complaint in the reviews so far have been that this book is not the same and not as good as the original. I would say that both of those comments are correct. However, that does not dimenish the quality of this title.

I don't know why so many people are upset that this book doesn't rehash everything James has said in the previous edition, except with profiles on 5-10 players from the '90s. I for one am glad I didn't pay [the current cost] for the same book I read in 1985 with 25 new pages.

James attempts to give a feel for what the different eras were like, as well as the players in each era. Not just the Ted Williams' and Mike Schmidts, but the players who were valuable in their day, but have been largely forgotten. This book is succesful at meeting that objective.

The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract should not be viewed as a replacement to the first edition, but as a title that can placed next to it and add value to original work.

I am not the fanatical type whom one might think is the typical buyer of this book. I am just a lukewarm baseball fan, and while I knew the author when we lived in the same town and worked at the same place twenty-five years ago, I never discovered his brilliance as a writer, statistician, observer of the human condition, even philosopher, until I started reading his annual "Baseball Abstracts" in the '80s. I looked forward to the appearance of that paperback every year, and bought copies for friends.

But I never got around to buying or reading the first "historical" abstract. Never mind. This book is informative, convincing, subversive, and above all, entertaining.
It addresses virtually every aspect of the sport, including its history, its future, its best players, even, through the contributions of James' wife, the appearance of players. And, of course, you get a huge dose of statistics, including some that James introduced to the game. He is utterly convincing in the use of these statistics to support his opinions--many of which are surprising. (Such as that my current local team-- a perennial loser in the post season, have two players who are among the top 100 in history.)

Like the annual "abstracts", this book's commentaries on the players are different according to what James wants to say about the player--or possibly some other issue. So sometimes you get a lengthy essay about something tangential; sometimes you get a few sentences. That is part of the charm of the book. Just try opening any page and you find a gem of a commentary, whether about Pete Rose or Dan Quisenberry. James' rigorous analysis of almost all the players you know and remember, and some you don't, are right on--try his analysis of, for example, Rickey Henderson or Craig Biggio.

This is a wonderful book; it's the kind that you want to keep on reading, pick up again and again. Or can't put down. because the author's comments on one subject or player stimulate you to want to see what he says about something or someone else.

I felt like a kid at Christmas when my copy of the New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract arrived yesterday. I tore open the box and began reading and did not put it down until I was finished. I have been waiting over a year for publication and the book lived up to my expectations and even exceeded them.

Having worn out my copy of the original (It is bound by duct tape), I wanted to see what changes drove the new book. I was pleased to find that Mr. James did not merely update passages; instead he completely reassessed each decade and the players that make baseball the wonder that it is.

I was pleased by the thoroughness of the work, not merely the statistical work but the thought processes and theories employed. The thoroughness of the work, combined with the writing style of Mr. James -- a style that combines the subtle humor of Thurber with the tartness of Perelman -- makes this a book that a casual baseball fan can enjoy as well as a baseball nut like myself.

The historical viewpoints are carefully constructed and designed to give the reader a feel for the game as it was played during the decade in question. The book educates without being stodgy or dull and it challenges the reader to give the book the attention it deserves.

If you have a baseball fan on your shopping list, or just someone who enjoys reading a thought provoking writer, this book is a must buy.

This is a superb look at baseball history by one of the game's top analysts. Bill James applies his unique statistical approach, which makes him such a guru for many serious students of the game. In the book's first half James examines baseball from the late 1800's up through the end of the 1990's. Then in the second half he rates the top 100 players of all time by position (pitcher, shortstop, etc.), using his newly developed "Win Shares" to guide the ratings. Was Willie Mays a better center fielder than Mickey Mantle? How about Ty Cobb and Joe DiMaggio? James gives a thoughtful answer. Bob Gibson's 1.12 ERA in 1968 was remarkable, but given the advantages pitcher's enjoyed in 1968, was Gibson's mark superior to the 1.63 ERA Greg Maddux achieved in the more hitting-friendly 1995 season? Fans may not always agree with James' views, but he inspires deep thinking. James also rates the top Negro league players, doing his best despite a lack of statistical data.

This stellar book has some flaws. Some of the author's comments about indvidual players are either too long or too short, and not always relating to on-field performance. Also, must James list the game's ugliest players? Still, this is a very engaging and intelligent look - updating the author's original historical abstract from the late 1980s.

The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract;
More info than you'll ever need.
I bought it for my 7 year old son who eat, sleep and breaths baseball.
He LOVES it.
It is a book that he'll get more out of as he gets older. Now he's focused on the stats and standings but the bok goes much deeper than that.

Have to give it to Bill James. His rankings on the all-time 2nd basemen is a classic.

Craig Biggio is one of two players in the 20th century to have 50 steals and 50 doubles in the same season. Tris Speaker being the other.

Biggio is one of 5 players in history with 2,500 hits, 200 home runs, 300 steals and 1,000 walks. Paul Molitor, Barry Bonds, Rickey Henderson and Willie Mays are the other 4.

James' rates Biggio as the 5th best 2nd baseman of all time. Read on and find out.

Lots of expert analysis of top current and former players and teams. Intertesting trivia. Huge book, but not one you read from front to back. Just find a particular subject that interests you or turn to a page at random and enjoy.

This latest edition shows James at his finest, in the form of numerous essays and thoughts about the game, ranging from the "history" he provides of the game from the 1870's through the end of the 1990s to his 100 best players at each position. Argue all you want about his selections (and what baseball fan doesn't like to argue about the all-times best players?), but he backs up his selections with cold hard facts. Statistics don't lie, they just get twisted around an awful lot. Or so it would seem. You can disagree with James' system (and I'm sure lots of folk have), but still it provides excellent food for thought. And it also shows how some players in certain seasons actually had much better seasons than it first appears, based on variables like the ballpark they played in, how well or poorly the team they played on did, whether the team was a "power" or "base hit" team and so on.

He also briefly discusses his Win Shares formula, which of course was the basis for another book. This formula in his view tends to show who may have been overrated or underrated during their career. Any time you put together a list of the all-time greats, you will always encounter the Hall of Famers like Williams, Ruth, Cobb, Mays, Aaron, Spahn, Young, Mathewson, and so on. But once you get past the "upper echelon" of players at each position, it becomes a little more difficult to decide who cracks the "Top 100" and who doesn't?

This is a book any baseball fan should have, not just because of the "reams of stats" in the book but because of the ideas James brings forth. And as someone else mentioned he does not hide his likes and dislikes (and I'm with James about reducing the number of relief pitchers in today's games!) in his essays. I've known about James for years, now I can say I have at least a casual knowledge of his "system" of rating players and teams.

Bill James is an outdated hack beloved only by aging yuppie geeks. His books remind one of Newsweek Magazine's moronic annual ratings guides of the colleges. James's book appeals only to that mindset, the compulsive "raters," the same folks who want to rate the world's great writers, being the Cliff's Notes authorities that they are. Discriminating fans, don't bother.

The new abstract is great fun to read. I'm not so concerned about data being old. As of last year I was still flipping through his first edition at least once a week over breakfast or downtimes. That said, with the time James should be giving to such projects, I definitely agree that he needs better proofreading. This has been a recurring problem for books that James eventually gets published.

James gets a bit defensive in his comments about Quisenberry, but that's understandable given that he's a huge Royals fan. It also gives him a chance to say what a wonderful person Quisenberry was, and that's worth something.

As for his explanation for the general overrating of Clemente, I think he's being kind there too in isolating Clemente's heroic death. I'm a huge Pirate and Clemente fan, but I feel his general overrating is more a result of three factors: 1) grace and charisma on the field that made him more important to many people than his stats otherwise deserved 2) the glorification of his batting average, especially since he was number one in NL batting for four years 2) retrospective guilt about the abuse Clemente took as an outspoken Hispanic who didn't attempt to fit the white baseball world's image of Mr. Wonderful, in combination with his impact as a Latin American sports pioneer.

As for individual complaints that always seem to arise and expand concerning individual rankings, readers need to get over that. I'm guessing that Gene Alley is not too concerned to see he's only in the 90s among shortstops all time, or that as of 2000 Jason Kendall and Brian Giles hadn't cracked the top 100 at their positions. Fun reading is fun reading. James has never attempted to put forward his chosen quotes as fully representative of the individuals described. In fact, he provides more caveats to his observations than most historians or writers in any field.

I have a little trouble with the "ugliest" rankings, especially when they serve no other purpose. It's OK to read historical perspectives of Ernie Lombardi's physique, but it's not especially enlightening to read that either Bill or Susan or some combination of others think George Foster doesn't look too good. James mentions a thank you at one point for recognizing a handsome face - that should clue him in as to how people might feel to be singled out in the opposite direction. It's not even funny. And poor Don Mossi.

Relatively minor complaints, for sure. It's by far the best baseball book I've ever read.

I enjoyed this book immensely. I own the first 1985 version (missed the 1989 update), and thought it was great. I agree with some reviewers that the distinction between peak and career rankings was better in the first book. However, I am okay that some player rankings have changed over time. IMHO, the best part of reading the player rankings were the bottom 30-40 at each position. I had forgotten many of these players with 4-5 good years (Von Hayes, Juan Samuel, Dick Stuart, etc.) and they brought good and bad memories.

The two negatives I had with this book:
1. Am analysis/ranking of managers, general managers, umpires, and owners was needed to complete the book. Since the book is The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, not the Players reference, many key and interesting figures are overlooked in baseball history. James did a book on managers about 10 years ago. Maybe this is a potential sequel as well.

2. It seemed that pitchers were short changed by having the top 100. Splitting them up into starters, relievers, and maybe lefty/righty would have made the pitching section as comprehensive as each of the other sections.

If you notice, both of my complaints are that I wanted more. Since Bill James delivered 900 pages of great material, I should and am thoroughly satisfied. My main complaint with Bill James is that he can't pump out 900 pages a month :) .

As usual, Bill James presents a phenominal book. This particular book would pale in comparison to previous baseball reference materials, except for one slight flaw: Whoever proof-read this must have given birth to a recent new-born, because they were frequently asleep on the job. I'm only going to give one example, because if you read this book as feverently as me, you'll know what I mean: In the 1950's, Christy Mathewson is listed on that decade's all-star team. I'm not sure, but I think he died before this decade began. If Bill James needs people to proof-read his recent publications, I would be more than willing to help out at the minimal of charges. Note the grammatical perfection in this review. Sincerely, Rich

The first part of the book - "The Game" - is a fascinating compendium of tidbits about each decade of the game's history, and is a lot of fun to browse at random.

The second part - "Player Ratings and Comments" - is equally good and lends itself to both browsing and sequential reading. Yes, it would be nice to have a detailed description of how Win Shares is calculated, given that it's mentioned on virtually every page of the section. Yes, some of the player rankings seem a bit curious, to say the least, and some of the player evaluations are sometimes silly. However, whether you agree with Bill or not, this section is still a fascinating read. I can't get enough of it and wish he'd included the top 200 at each position.

Regarding the various statistical approaches used in the book, one must appreciate that they're not the ultimate word on the subject - they're all just one man's opinions and best efforts at analyzing a large and difficult body of data. No evaluation of players is going to be perfect and definitive, so appreciate Bill's numbers for what they are - the product of a very knowledgeable baseball historian and statistician.

One glaring gaffe appears in the essay entitled "State of the Union". The comment is that the UA Saint Louis Maroons "eventually became the St. Louis Cardinals", which is not true. The Maroons joined the NL for two seasons after the UA died, moved to Indianapolis for three more, and then expired. The Cardinals' ancestor was the AA Browns, who moved to the NL in 1892, after the demise of the AA. (BTW, what's this essay doing in the section on the 1870's when the UA operated in 1884?)

This review is not about the quality of the book (of course it is excellent and well thought out, its by Bill James), but the proof reading. There were at least 50 errors in this book (typo's, wrong verbage, etc). It is a trend that I find to often in today's publications. Is it asking too much after paying $45.00 for a book, that it not seem as if it were edited by a ten year old.

I know what to expect when I read a Bill James book--a good many nice anecdotes, lots of huffing and puffing about his view of how baseball has and should work, and some nifty new statistical formulae which are usually more miss than hit, but an honest try nonetheless.

This book is no exception. The chapters on each decade are nice strolls down memory lane with some fun stories about some baseball characters. The details are often sketchy--he lists player names as winning the "O.J. Simpson Award" or "Best Curve Ball" or "Better Man than a Baseball Player," but usually doesn't tell us why the player(s) are bestowed these honors. Still, I found the "decades" section of the book to be interesting, even though the complete lack of proofreading mystifies me (in one paragraph, I'm referred to "page 000").

His self-exhaulted "Win Shares" formula, which he seems to have worked very hard to create, is a large part of the rest of the book. He goes over just why and how he doles out merits and demerits, ultimately computing a single Rotisserie dollar value for each player. There is a lot of arm waving and much hocus pocus and fudge factoring going on in this "statistic," and I'm not entirely sure I care all that much after all the adjustments he makes. But, like most of James' statistics, you can take home pieces of his analysis--like first basemen's unassisted putouts and assists to fielders other than the pitcher (though he misses the boat somewhat here, too)--and you get a good partial statistic or two. All in all, this is an interesting calculation, but not something I expect will sweep the baseball world.

Finally, he uses these Win Shares and his own subjective thought processes to list the best 100 players at each position. The reading gets a bit tedious, but you'll often find a nugget within one of those vignettes, so if you're like me, you wind up reading all of them just trying to find where the "meat" of this book lies.

I say it's a good one to check out in the library. If you're one who collects "statistical expository" books, go ahead and purchase it and you won't be too disappointed. This would have passed as a seminal work 20 years ago, but now we expect much more hard evidence and true statistics from sabermetricians. Bill is slipping a little.

I don't agree with people that think that this edition doesn't make an improvement over the first one.

Not only has Bill updated his 'The Game' section, where his comments on how the game was played decade by decade (with an added section for the Negro Leagues), but he expanded greatly on the player ratings so to include the 'best' 100 players at each position.

His new rankings are based on a new methodology he has developed called 'win shares' (not explained in this book, but in an upcoming book to be published in march 2002). This methodology tries to include all aspects of a player (offense, defense, baserunning, etc), and their impact on his teams wins.

I, for one, find it extremely interesting and valuable as a measuring tool, and can't wait for the 'win shares' book to come out.

As for the comments on the players ratings section, I can understand why some may find them unnecessary and maybe even boring, but I do think that they are of great help in picturing what these players were about, and not just rely on statistics.

This is truly a great work, worth every penny.

Bill James has been my favorite baseball writer ever since I first read his 1979 Bill James Baseball Abstract. Then in 1986, he wrote the Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract. A wonderful book, very difficult to put down. Now, the best has gotten better. All new section on the Negro Leagues, the 1990's and ratings on the Top 100 players at each position. A real smorgasbord for the baseball fan. If you enjoy great writing and baseball analysis, this is the book to get. Congratulations, Bill, great job!

This book could be subtitled `Random Thoughts about the 100 Greatest Players at Every Position by Bill James'. This tome contains a wealth of information for anyone interested in the historical and statistical aspects of baseball. It is really three books in one. In the first section, titled `The Game', James takes a historical tour through each decade of baseball, discussing the players, the era, some of the important (or infamous) events. The second, and most important, section is entitled `The Players'. James gives his ratings for each of the 100 best players at each position with some comments after each entry. This is the real meat of the book. It isn't the kind of thing that you are likely to read straight through. You'll pick up this book and read a few pages now and then, or just thumb through various sections. The final section, `Reference' discusses James WinShares system in action by comparisons of various historical teams, some great, some terrible, and some mediocre.

Quite simply, I don't know how anyone can give this book less than five stars. It doesn't matter if you agree with James on the rating of every player, or whether Mantle was better than Mays. You'll realize that there is/was a lot more to baseball than you ever knew! One thing I found most interesting about this book was James' discussions of players I thought were great when I was a boy. It is interesting to see how my boyhood notions compare with James' statistical arguments. It is also interesting to see many players that I perceived as average/decent in the top 100 at their position. A second thing that I found fascinating about this book was James' discussion of the importance of offense versus defense. This topic comes up often at certain positions such as CF, RF, SS, and 2B. How does Roberto Clemente's great throwing arm, for example, offset someone else's better home run numbers? Who was really the `better' player?

One final note, James uses his WinShares system and other statistical arguments throughout this book, but they are generally not described in detail. If you want to learn about WinShares per se, this isn't the book.
In addition, this book was published in 2000/2001, so there are clearly many current players (Manny Ramirez, Derek Jeter, etc.) who would be in an updated version.

Bottom line - I bought this book a year ago and look at it, at least a little, virtually every day, and I'm sure I'll be looking at it 20 years from now. At less than 18 dollars, this is a steal. If you are interested in baseball, you are wasting time hestitating, buy the book.

The New Bill James Historical Abstract is a must for anyone interested in baseball history. James gives a decade by decade description of what the game was like and how it has changed over the years. He also includes numerous essays addressing different issues confronting baseball (i.e., revenue sharing, competitive balance, speeding up play, etc.). Everything is insightful and interesting, even when the reader disagrees.

The heart of the book is James's ranking of players at each position by "Win Shares," which is James complex calculation for comparing players value over time and position. James includes a lengthy discussion of this concept and many other discussions of baseball statistics.

This is the sort of book you can just pick up and read as time permits. Some entries are very brief - some are inexplicable long (Ernie Lombardi for example, has an extremely long entry - much longer than many catchers ranked above him). Entries are long and short depending on the point James thinks the player's career illustrates.

In short, this book is crammed with interesting facts and insights, and is not to be missed.

How can you not like this book?

Bill James is a stat-head. You already know that. And if this were simply a compilation of obscure stats -- many made up by James himself -- I'd probably skip it. I can get my stats elsewhere, thank you. I already own the Baseball Encylopedia and Total Baseball.

But Bill James is also a terrific, engaging writer. His studies, in every book he writes, are filled with humorous and insightful observations on individual players and the history of the game. It's true in this book, too. Just when you think you've read enough about, say, the Top 100 Shortstops in history, James sneaks in an essay about why catchers and shortstops have historically been such genial, well-liked people, and why the outfield is filled with such curs. The book is filled with essays like this, in unexpected places, so that turning the page you're never sure what new and funny stories or trends you'll find.

It ain't perfect. The Win Shares system is subjective. It is imperfect. And Bill James bears grudges. He despises Rogers Hornsby and has some pretty not-nice things to say about Joe Morgan, the broadcaster. So what? The ratings are merely a jumping-off point for character studies and anecdotes. And any book without prejudices -- at least any BASEBALL book -- is bound to be dull. Chill out and enjoy. It's a fun read.

No offense, but baseball fans have been arguing about player rankings for a long time now. What true baseball fan among us hasn't gotten into a discussion of the relative merits of say, Joe Dimaggio vs. Wille Mays, Walter Johnson vs. Roger Clemens, etc., etc.? More than any other sport, baseball encourages comparison of players from different eras. Now, maybe you've never sat down and actually came up with a list, but, really, he isn't doing anything different in principle here than the types of comparisons mentioned above, he's just a lot more thorough. And of course there is a lot more to this book than just lists of 100 players at each position. It is funny, engaging, thought-provoking. I recommend it.

The best thing about Bill James is that, although he is the "Sultan of Stats", this book is about his prose. His depth of analysis and insight is why I read his abstracts. Read this: Joe Gordon was one of the best at turning the double play and he and Rizzuto may have been the best double play duo of all time. Or this: If he hadn't been injured, Charlie Keller would have been one of the greatest power hitters in the history of baseball. Do those (paraphrased by me) statements and the facts and reasoning behind them intrigue you? If they do, there are thousands more just like them contained in this book. I highly recommend it.

the new historical abstract isn't quite up to the standards of the old one. bill tries to do a little too much (1000 players) to provide his ususal in-depth profile of very many players. indeed, a numbers of players have no real value added comments at all. however, james remains by far the best baseball author on the market and his second best is still a must for any serious baseball fan. anyone who reads and likes this book and hasn't read the original should get a copy as soon as possible.

After a decade of relative inactivity, Bill James' incredibly prolific muse returns with a bang.
The book contains, I'm guessing, 85% new material with respect to the original 1985 Historical Abstract. But in that 85%-- hoo boy. James objectively ranks the top 125 players at each position, with comments of varying length on 900 of them. He also ranks the top 100 regardless of position, including Negro Leaguers. Some of the rankings are surprising (Jimmie Wynn as the 10th greatest CF ever, and is Jeff Bagwell really the NL's greatest 1B of all time?), but they will certainly provoke thought.
This is where James unleashes his latest sabermetric creation, the Win Shares system, which attempts to turn a player's value over the course of a season into a single integer directly proportional to the number of games he won for his team. The Historical Abstract only contains a brief synopsis of the system's methodology: the entire thing can be found in the book "Win Shares", the companion volume to this one. (And I don't think James did that specifically to sell twice as many books, although in my case he did; rather, containing it in the Historical Abstract would make a 1000-page book an 1100-page doorstop.)
This book is worth it just for James' analysis of defense. He calls it the most important work he's done in maybe 20 years, and I don't necessarily disagree. He elegantly reworks the data to show that despite their misleading numerical totals, Bill Buckner really was a mediocre 1B and Johnny Bench really was the brilliant catcher we always suspected. Once again, what James does best is force people to look at baseball in different ways.

The downside- the book could have used more illustrations. James reprints an essay on Ty Cobb (part of the 15%) which references a particular photo that appears in the original Historical Abstract but, maddeningly, not this one.
Also, the book was released immediately after the 2001 season but the player comments were obviously completed a year earlier.
Finally, the proofreading is egregious. Even the opening flap of the dust jacket contains several errors, including 3 in one sentence. (Regarding Jim Baumann, who hit 72 homers for Roswell, TX one year. "Bauman" should be spelled with one "n"; his name was Joe, not Jim; and Roswell is in New Mexico, not Texas.) A paragraph on Ron Fairly mentions him 9 times. His name is spelled properly 5 times, and "Fairley" the other 4. There are mistakes like this on almost every page. To James' credit, he clearly hired a more capable copy editor for "Win Shares".

A Bill James book is comparable to one by Roger Kahn in that in each case baseball fans emerge with a treasure chest of riches. James once more leaves fans a tome filled with fascinating facts and opinions in "The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract." As one who has enjoyed comparing outputs of players from different eras, I have thoroughly enjoyed using James' inventive electronic baseball encyclopedia. Where James shines is that he knows just what makes baseball fans tick. The diamond sport is intriguing due to its dramatic day by day element along with the numerous matchups and statistical possibilities that make watching the sport fun and second guessing inevitable to knowledgeable fans. Why do certain hitters shine against particular pitchers? Why do some excellent pitchers have tremendous difficulty with certain teams and particular batters? James knows enough to focus on the fine details of the game, from which knowledge is gleaned as to how certain managers can pull off major pennant victories by making the appropriate moves.

James has one section revealing an all-time all-star team of productive players beyond the age of 35. Perhaps the most fascinating section of the book is his all-time position by position choices and his rationale for his decisions. Yogi Berra edges out Johnny Bench for the number one spot among catchers, Willie Mays is selected number one at center field over Ty Cobb, and Walter Johnson is chosen as the greatest pitcher of all time with Lefty Grove in second place. Two Yankee immortals hold down their respective positions with Lou Gehrig James' choice at first base and the legendary "Sultan of Swat" Babe Ruth gaining the nod in right field.

Another James strength is his ability to see all aspects of diamond play, revealing a player's ability to achieve victory through offensive and defensive efforts, then further breaking matters down to hits, accomplishments on the base paths, along with the value of a strong throwing arm in the field and the ability to make circus catches and pounce on sharply hit ground balls. James sees the player in every dimension of his on field existence.

Mrs. James also comes into the picture. Bill notes that his wife fastidiously looked at his baseball cards and has made her opinions known on the best looking players of each decade. How many other baseball analysts have covered this point? James never runs out of interesting categories to discuss, making eager fans always beg for more.

Bill James rose to national prominence through
a series of annual Baseball Abstracts. His Historical
Abstract is the culmination, in a sense, of all he
learned studying baseball from year to year by producing
the annual books. The
writing is spectacular and witty. The information
in the book is a must for all real baseball fans.
It is, without a doubt, the best baseball book ever.
Some of his ratings are a little idiosyncratic, but
his methods and general conclusions are essential to
a good understanding of professional baseball.

... in both Math and Reading! Baseball is more than a sport; it's a literary tradition, a portal into American social history, and the finest set of exercises available in personnel management. My baseball-loving son, now only months from high school graduation, improved his SAT math score from junior to senior year by 85 points, not be taking the Princeton Review course but by studying the Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract.

You'll find this weighty volume full of the quirks and foibles that elevate Our National Pastime from mere gladiatorial combat to a blend of ballet, psychodrama, and interpersonal bonding. I gave a copy of this great compendium of stats to my son for his birthday five years ago; now he's planning to carry that copy away with him toward adulthood, so he thoughtfully gave me a new copy of my own for Christmas this year.

Bill Jame's 100 greatest players the NEW list starts around page 358 and reaches peak idiocy on page 360 where he explains that Lou Gehrig wasn't in the top ten because if he and Ruth were so good why did they only win 4 pennants in the 10 years they were teammates. What a NIMROD.

Then HE DOESN'T PICK ONE CATCHER IN THE TOP 40.

Even worse and probably the most heinous change was the move of Warren Spahn from TENTH, now get this, to 36th. Spahn won his first game at the age of 25. He won 363 games. He won 20 games 13 times.
__________________

I first heard about Bill James when I read Moneyball, which is about the odd general managing strategies of Billy Beane, Oakland Athletics general manager and James devotee.

This book lists the best 100 players at each position. While I cannot even pretend to understand the methodology of his rankings, I enjoyed the mini-biographies about some of my favorite players and James' unique assessment of their worth. James also provides a decade by decade synopsis of the major leagues, even down to the styles of uniforms and stadium attendance figures, and the style of play that predominated each era.

From Wikipedia: "Sabermetrics is the analysis of baseball through objective evidence, especially baseball statistics. The term is derived from the acronym SABR, which stands for the Society for American Baseball Research. It was coined by Bill James, who has been its most enthusiastic (and by far its most famous) proponent."

James' story is fascinating. He is an everyman. A fan's fan. He wrote his first abstract in 1977 while working nights as a security guard. Now he works as a consultant for the Boston Red Sox and played a role in their 2004 pennant.

If you love baseball, you probably already know who Bill James is. You either appreciate his work, or you are crying in the dark against him.

For those who love him, this is a book to own and read over and over again. Keep it someplace handy to dip into at random. His essays are what I tend to enjoy the most, including some excellent ones about ways to improve baseball.

The earlier version is well worth having, too. He revised so thoroughly from one to the next that there isn't much overlap.

While he will rethink according to his newest models of analysis, to me the best parts are his humor and insight and clear love for the game.

I bought the original when it came out years ago, and read it, and read it, and read it until it's spine cracked and pages started falling out. This time I bought the hardcover edition (buy whatever edition you can get your hands on, and can afford) and have read it, and read it, and read it; but thanks to hardcover binding it is not falling apart. One of the most fun aspects of this version is seeing how James has used his Win Shares method of evaluating performance to rank players by position. (By the way, the book Win Shares is an absolute classic, and should be purchased with this book, if at all possible.) For example, if you were to look strictly at the numbers you may say that Ty Cobb or Tris Speaker (or even the Mick) was the greatest center fielder of them all; but armed with his Win Shares method he makes you seriously consider that it has to be Willie Mays. I certainly have no argument against James's evaluation, but with Win Shares there seems to be a more logical, statistical basis for that judgment than by comparing raw numbers (not that Willie Mays needs to apologize for anything; he did after all have some huge seasons while playing at Candlestick park. How would he have done, I wonder, playing the last half of his career in Atlanta?) If you are a baseball fan, young or old, buy this book and get a wonderful overview of baseball history.

This was good, but maybe not as good as I expected. As noted by Michael Lewis in "Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game", Bill James has been the unsung hero of a more level-headed approach to acquiring baseball players. This book does an excellent job of providing some historical background with many (biased) commentaries. However, I found the selections less convincing than I expected.

Bill James makes baseball history come alive with comprehenive analysis, wonderful insights and unique tidbits of information about each decade. The second half of the book with the 100 best players at each position will have you shouting Amen for some overdue recongition for some, who in the world is that for some people you've never heard of, and what is he thinking about others. In short, it's a wonderful time to sit down and argue baseball with someone who is a true fan.

Bill James is the (at least in my mind) undisputed Master of Baseball knowledge. I was an avid reader of his earlier publications, and devoured over and over the 1985 version of this book. That is until the owner/player disputes in the early and mid 1990's. Haveing been away from baseball for the last 6 or seven years, it had been drawing further and further from my daily thoughts. That is until I recieved this book as a gift!!! Darn, hooked again. Bill (I can't call him Mr James, his writting is much to personal for that) has a way of making it all magic again. This book covers it all, from the good to the bad, and even the ugly (see his comments on the ugliest player of each decade. Weather you agree with his conclusions or not, you will be enthralled and captivated by his writting style and very detailed analysis of the "true national pastime". Witty, observant, not afraid to ruffle feathers and totally entertaining. That in a nutshell is Bill James. If you want a quite evenings read of a hundred or so pages, or just want to pick it up for a quick five minute fix, this book will take care of you. Enjoy it over and over, I have.

This is the kind of entertaining reference book that I love,I was even amused by the sweeping statement that appears early in the book, "Baseball is the only game in which the defence has the ball", I'll bet that comes as a great surprise to anyone familiar with either Cricket or Rounders! (Bill, you ought to get out more.)
Every time I dip into this book there's always something of interest. I would have liked it heavier on the anecdotes and lighter on the player stats, but I'm not complaining.
This is a big book, but I wouldn't have minded it being even bigger.

For the past few years I have, upon entering a book store, looked to see if either Bill James or Jonathan Franzen have written books. This year they both do! I would rather have James' book on a deserted island and you would too.

what a truly wonderful piece of work, once again from my favorite author, bill james. i just wish they would let me do the proofreading. christy matheson could not have been one of the top pitchers of the 1950's as he had been dead for over 2 decades. awesome reading though !

If I were stranded on an island and could take two books, I would choose the Bible and this book; the latter supplants the original Historical Baseball Abstract, to which I have turned again and again for nearly 15 years. If you enjoy baseball history, get this book! If you like to speculate on the best players in baseball history, get this book now!!

Bill James is clever, funny, provocative, and an outstanding writer. He challenges some aspects of baseball lore, reinforces other beliefs, and he doesn't mind provoking the reader (sometime I think he does this just to wake us up!). Over the years I have gobbled up every bit of his writing I can find, and never been disappointed. Bill James has enabled me to think about baseball in ways I never did before, and for that I'm grateful.

But prepare for some surprises. The "best player in the game today"? Not Griffey, not Barry...see page 362. Best second baseman ever? Another surprise, perhaps. Best catcher of all time? Not Bench, not Cochrane, not Campy...

Read it for yourself. You'll be really glad you did.

The first edition of the Historical Abstract is the best baseball book I own, and I own a lot of them. So this updated version was eagerly anticipated. The decade by decade breakdowns are entertaining; who do you think the ugliest players of the 90s were, or who the most aggressive baserunner is? For the more serious fan, the book improves on the original by including a great deal more player comments, this time, writeups on the top 100 alltime at each position (Joe Kuhel, Hank Severeid....). Some people weren't expecting this, but I enjoyed that part very much, as it gave me some background and insights on a lot of people I was unfamiliar with. All in all, I came away more informed than I started.

The Win Shares concept is new and innovative, so the stat crunchers will enjoy that. In the years since it's introduction it has been critiqued and improved upon. But the concept seems to mesh with arguments people have made in years past about the faults of statistic-only analysis and how it doesn't account for players on winning teams. Win Shares takes a large step toward fixing that and the logic behind it is intuitively sound.

So really, the book is great and has a little something for everyone who has a passing interest in the history of the game.

UPDATE - Having had a number of years pass since my initial review, I can understand some of the criticisms leveled since that time. James can get hyperbolic in some of his opinions, I would agree.

However, one particularly vehement written crusade against the book early on did bother me though, one where the author ("Antistat") went so far as to accuse James of racism.

His justification? First, James didn't include the Negro Leaguers in his positional top 100 rankings, so he's somehow a racist and biased against them. Yet if you read the book, it's clear to see that James does include them in his top 100 ranking, and in fact gives more credit to them than the average fan usually does - 17 of them in the top 100, Oscar Charleston ranked 4th alltime ahead of Ty Cobb; Satchel Paige and Josh Gibson also in the top TEN. James also writes his similarly impassioned defense as to why guys like Charleston SHOULD be so highly regarded?

Second, the guy stats James says the only reason blacks like Bonds dominate the game now is because the game is easier to dominate (hence a slight against the legitimacy of their efforts). Did the guy even read the book? James makes the OPPOSITE argument - that the game is HARDER to dominate now and hence modern players like Bonds get MORE credit for their efforts. Is this joker just making stuff up as he goes along? Racism? Good grief, what absolute nonsense. Such charges don't serve any purpose except let a bombastic blowhard grind an axe against an author who he knows will not respond. Well, I responded for him.

If a baseball fan were to be stuck on a deserted island with only one book, this should be it. James here is at his best, with history, statistics and analysis presented in his unique manner. This book can be read for long stretches, but its' format makes it perfect for grabbing a few minutes here and there. The only problem is that is was published in 2001; it would be wonderful to have updated player rankings based on what has occurred since then.

I have probably read this book 100 times. I still have the original hard cover and it is looking pretty worn, but it is one of my favorite things on my shelf. So, be warned, if you don't like books that you'll thumb through constantly, this book isn't for you.

James goes through the history of baseball in a decade-by-decade format, listing the best teams, players, and lots of interesting tidbits. Then he goes into the player rankings, #1 through #100 at each position. It will make more sense if you've read Win Shares, but honestly, even if you haven't, you'll be fine. Sometimes he doesn't give any explanation for why a player ranks where he does, other than their stats at the end of the section for that position. But even so, it's a great read.

James also includes a (controversial) section on the top 100 players of all time, with explanations for why each player ranks where they did.

If you like learning about the history of this great game, or just want to discover some players you've never heard of, this book is for you.

This book was published in 2000 and it is still timely despite the steroid controversy. The book needs a revision by the author to discuss steriod issues and what impact those issues have on how he regards such players as Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds and Rafael Palmiero. The book is beautifully written with a chapter on each decade in the history of baseball and a great chapter on the Negro Leagues. There are also rankings of the best players of all time at each position. Even without a good steroid discussion, the book is a great read for any baseball fan or any fan of American History.

James has bias. He loves Mantle and has figured out a way to elevate him in his rankings. He dislikes Nolan Ryan and tries to show why Ryan should not be ranked higher. On the plus side ... he has managed to include defense into his rankings. Also, players of different eras are not lumped together but compared to players of THEIR generation for comparison. Some rankings I don't agree with, most I do and a few he has convinced me to change my mind on. I wonder how much Clemens, Bonds and Maddux have moved up on the all time ratings with another year under their stats since this fine book was published. Lastly, I would have given this book a 4.5 rating but I had to choose between 4 and 5.

Don't expect a rich dataset you can pore over and glean interesting observations from. This is mostly a list of the best players at each position and a few comments about each one, some of which have a some statistical grounding, others of which are merely anecdotal. And it was clearly written a few years ago. This seems like it should be a much slimmer volume than it is.

I wish Bill James would do his annual book again with lots of interesting facts and figures.

This is the kind of entertaining reference book that I love,I was even amused by the sweeping statement that appears early in the book, "Baseball is the only sport in which the defence has the ball", I'll bet that comes as a great surprise to anyone familiar with either Cricket or Rounders! (Bill, you ought to get out more.)
Every time I dip into this book there's always something of interest. I would have liked it heavier on the anecdotes and lighter on the player stats,some of which border on what I would call SGM (Statistics Gone Mad), but I'm not complaining.
This is a big book, and I wouldn't have minded it being even bigger.

You're here, so you already know who Bill James is and what he does. Therefore, let's just cut to the chase : this is a grand slam of a book. You want in depth analysis? James delivers. You want anecdotes? Again , James delivers. You want everything in between? Be assured, he does not disappoint.

One other nice and subtle feature : for as informed as James is, he never talks down to his reader. For example, he will expand a thought by saying "what fewer people know is" instead of boasting that "FEW people know that such and such...". Maybe not a big deal to some, but for me it confirmed the notion the most informed writers can still be counted among the humblest.

As James points out in his introduction this is not a book to be studied, but one to be 'picked up'. By doing just that, you have assured yourself of years of quality reading. Consider it a vital addition to your baseball library - and more importantly to your library in general.

Bills James does a great job though not as great as the original. Baseball purest will get a big kick out of this James book on the greatest game ever. This, along with the "Backyard Baseball Drills" video, has enriched my baseball happy house, wife, kids & all. Ho Ho Ho, Christmas has come early! Play Ball!

I really enjoyed this book. I am a die-hard Bill James fan and this was a great read with plenty of in-depth analysis and research! Great for the true MLB fan.

Having read an earlier version of Bill James' classic historical abstract, I purchased this as updated version as a gift for a friend who works as a baseball announcer for the local American Legion team.

I recommend this book as a gift for baseball aficionados; more than a book or a reference, it is a treasury that will be not be found tucked away on a bookshelf but readily available, pages marked up and dog-eared, and enjoyed for many years.

Amazon lists this book for less than $20. With more than 1,000 pages, The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract is an outstanding value; rating: Five stars.

this book is amazing. all the information here is incredible. james does a wonderful job of writing and putting together his thoughts. its interesting and a good read. every baseball fan should own this book.

I'm a long-time fan of Bill James and purchased this book several years ago. It has the analysis, insights, passion, reverence, and irreverence that are trademarks of his work. Recently I purchased the Win Shares book, admittedly years after it was published. Since the concept of Win Shares is the underpinning for the ratings in this book, I'd like to share some of my comments regarding this approach.

1. As others have mentioned, the insistence of James of allocating 52% of Win Shares to defense (pitching and fielding) and 48% to offense is arbitrary and yields distorted Win Shares values for the players. It would seem to me to be logical to assign the proportion of Win Shares to offense based on the relative value of the team's offense to the defense. For example, this formula could be used to evaluate the percentage of Win Shares that goes to the offense. A/(A+(2*B)-C) where A is runs scored (adjusted for park factor), B is average team runs scored for the league, and C is runs allowed (adjusted for park factor). Using this technique, the Blue Jays in 2008 have a formula that resolves to 721/(721 + (2*775)-616), or rounded to 44% . Therefore 44% of the Blue Jays Win Shares of 2008 would go to their offense and 56% to their defense. Using the same formula for the Texas Rangers of 2008 yields 61% of Win Shares that go to offense and 39% to defense. It seems reasonable to assign the values this way because the Blue Jays clearly won more games because of their pitching, and the Rangers won more games because of their hitting. Of course, this will make the Win Shares of individual players more accurate as well as the Ranger's hitters, for example, clearly deserve more than 48% of the team's Win Shares. James at one point mentions that he wouldn't want the percentage of pitching Win Shares to go above 58%, because the effect of that could cause some offensive players to have negative Win Shares. But that seems to be pointing out a flaw in the Win Shares offensive calculation rather than a rationale for keeping the pitching share at around 52%.

2. For middle infielders, a percentage of the evaluation is based on assists, which makes sense. There is an "expected number of assists" for a shortstop(or second baseman) that is based on a) the proportion of assists that typically go to a shortstop on a league basis, as well as b) an adjustment for the number of inning a left-handed pitcher was on the mound. Then the actual number of assists for a player is evaluated against the expected number giving the Assists Scale. This is good as a start, but the formula would seem to be inaccurate to the extent that your fellow fielders are either quite good or quite bad. For example, take 2 shortstops from two different teams with the exact same fielding ability. Player A has a great fielding second-baseman and third-baseman next to him. Player B's fielding counterparts are sub-par. Using the formula, it would seem to me that Player B would end up with a higher number on the Assists Scale merely because his second baseman and third baseman are waving at balls that Player B's fellow fielders would field safely. Player B would then have more opportunities to make plays himself. Therefore Player B would end up with a higher percentage of his team's assists and therefore look better on the Assists Scale, despite being no better than Player A. Fielding has a zero-sum aspect to it that makes it hard to evaluate a players' assists (or putouts) in isolation. If a system, such as this one, only look at plays made (such as assists), then we are trying to extract opportunity (plays that could be made) from outcome(actual assists), which is a futile task, it would seem to me. Using the "expected number of assists" described above goes part of the way to show opportunity, but does not take into account the fellow fielders, as I mentioned. I don't have a solution to this, but it is a limitation of the formula.

3. In evaluating player ratings, James evaluates players by a combination of total Win Shares and Win Shares during a player's peak years. A Win Share value for a player of (for example) 30 consists of perhaps the first 20 points consisting of value below replacement level, then perhaps the next 5 points are above replacement but below average, and the final 5 would be above average. A player who plays a longer career would tend to have more of their Win Shares consisting of value below average and below replacement value points. Therefore if you compared two similar players on lifetime Win Shares, the one with the longer career would have more Win Shares even if he had less value above replacement value for his career. James also uses Win Shares during a player's peak years on the theory that we tend to evaluate players on their best years rather than their total career. He says that by using a percentage (I forget what it is) of the peak Win Shares value with a percentage of the lifetime Win Shares for a player, we get the best of both worlds. But I think that using a formula that includes the peak Win Shares merely mitigates some of the problem with total Win Shares, specifically the fact that players with longer careers get overvalued. I think if there was a way to extract the portion of Win Shares that is above replacement level, then that value could be totaled for each season, and the new statistic of Total Win Shares Above Replacement Level (TWSARL?) could be used as the player rating. The combination of total Win Shares and peak win shares is not as coherent to me, as it combines two different things, as well as having the limitation I mentioned.

I'm still getting to understand the Win Shares approach, but these are my initial impressions. Win Shares is an ambitious, worthy idea, and James' implementation and formulas are quite impressive. As he says, it turns the usual method of player evaluation upside-down, and puts players contributions in context of the team, which has been more naturally understood in other team sports like football and basketball. I think, however, that his approach caused some unexpected compromises and rationalizations to be made to pull it all together, which is implied by my comments.

I must say again that the New Historical Baseball Abstract is another ground-breaking and essential book from Bill James , despite my reservations on Win Shares

Baseball history, player rankings,etc. A great book for the baseball enthusiast. Bill James is the go to guy for this kind of info and this book is a great way to start. Enjoy!

Take a tour through baseball history with this decade-by-decade guide. Also included are all kinds of baseball statistics and an in-depth analysis of them.

Brings the stars of the past to life to an extent I'd have never thought possible. Interesting and informative, not to mention fascinating and thought-provoking. Another classic keeper from Mr. James.

One of my friends who lives two blocks from Wrigley Field but (inexplicably) does not give a hoot about baseball once commented to me, "I can't stand baseball fans. They're so hung up on stats." My reply: "So what?"

The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract is the kind of work that would absolutely drive my friend mad. Well, at least a solid third of it would drive him crazy.

If you're a big statistics guy, this is your book. If you're a big sports trivia guy, this is your book. If you're into lists, this is your book. If you're looking for a highly educated opinion about who is the greatest to play the game decade-by-decades and cumulatively over the last 140 years, this is your book. If you just plain love baseball and don't like what typically passes as a baseball publication, this is your book.

The Abstract combines the infromational content of an almanac with large doses of sports reporting -- one part Baseball Almanac, another part Sports Illustrated. James conveys the feeling that he actually watched all of the thousands of major league players covered in this mammoth volume, going all the way back to the 1870 season (with a brief rundown on the happenings before that year), and also has a nice section on the sadly underappreciated stars of the Negro Leagues. He does a great job of subtly pointing out the significance of baseball in the evolving American societal spectrum. He seamlessly goes from stats to stories to analysis to prediction, and the journey is thoroughly enjoyable the whole way through.

This book is like reading Ken Burns' "Baseball" documentary series -- if Burns hadn't gotten himself hung up on the New York teams for mindless hours on end. (Did that annoy anyone else? Twelve seconds on Ernie Banks? That's it? Ten minutes on the first pitiful decade of Mets baseball? What?! Why?!)

James treats the game as any sports enthusiast should: with a careful blend of scientific objectivity (by the way of practically a million figures and statistical analyses) with an adoring fan's subjectivity (like the guy who sits behind you at the game who seems to have an opinion on everything, only this time the opinions are balanced and backed up).

This book is not for everyone. If you're a casual fan and looking for a great sports novel, pick up a David Halberstam book. If you're into the intellectual, esoteric view of the game and all its possibilities, grab a George Will book. This book is for people who love the game for the personalities and numbers, who watch about 150 games a year, and think "Baseball Tonight" should have its own network channel. If you are a casual fan looking to not only familiarize yourself with baseball but also truly understand the game, this is also your book. Beware: it has the potential turn someone with a passing interest in the game into a complete fanatic.

One minor drawback: the index is somewhat unreliable. A 2-page discrepency seems to pop up at some point (I can't seem to find the exact spot) but just as mysteriously the error corrects itself somewhere (again, I don't know where).

This is really a great resource for baseball nuts. So buy it, love it, and memorize all one thousand pages of it. (Just kidding.)

Bill James always seems to be an interesting read to me - I tend to enjoy more his biographies on players, rather than the statistical explanations - too much statistics takes the enjoyment out of it for me - I can't say I agree with some of his ratings and I didn't agree with there being so many pre-1900 players in this book, but I do agree with alot of his ideas of the differences between the eras.

Even though this is the best book I have read in a long time, I have hesitated in recommending it to my friends because of the commitment involved in reading it. This was a mammoth task to put together and takes a while to absorb.

I learned three things from this book. Learning any one of them would have made reading this book worthwhile.

The first is, of course, about baseball. I learned about what has happened in baseball, who has played baseball, who the best players were and why, how baseball has changed over the years, what has made a player great in different eras, and how popular baseball has been in our country. Bill James brings an infectious love to the game of baseball.

The second lesson was how one goes about historical research. James is very concerned about being accurate in his stories so he lets you know how he found out the story he is conveying. The difficulties inherent in showing a particular event happened in the early 20th century are great. James relies mostly on newspaper accounts, which are often biased in various ways. I was struck at the difficulty he had in being sure of details in earlier times (1860s and 1870s). It shows how difficult it is for us to have detailed knowledge of even earlier times and in other fields.

The third lesson was in logic. It was amazing to watch the author pick apart the game of baseball. He is trying (through the win shares method) to rank players of different eras, of different positions, of different strenghts, who had different competition in a logical manner. He breaks down the game. Defining what is important (winning) and asking what makes a team win. The answer, of course, is "a lot of things." But James takes all the different aspects of the game, gives them weight in accordance to how much the aid winning, and then shows who has accomplished the most in this game. From a baseball perspective this process is interesting. But it also made me think about other areas of life. Can we break down other parts of life down in logical pieces in order to understand them better. I think so. This book gives a pattern.

This book changed the way I look at the world. It is well worth reading.

A new Bill James book is always welcomed by baseball fans, even if it is an updated version of an earlier edition. The centerpiece of the new Abstract is James' greatly expanded player ranking and associated commentaries. The rankings, based on some new James player stats, and his own judgement, take off from the first version's list. The rankings follows a decade-by-decade history of professional baseball. Longtime James readers, dating from his 1980's abstracts, may look for more statistical analysis, but the general reader will find the new Abstract a worthy addition to their baseball book shelf.

Any real baseball fan will have a ball with this book! Now that the holidays are winding down and winter has fully settled in this book is perfect with a hot drink and some time on your hands to read - it will get you thinking and daydreaming about baseball. It will also give you endless topics of discussion with other like minded baseball fans who cant wait for spring. Get the book and enjoy!!! Pitchers and catchers will be reporting to spring training in no time!

I've read James material for years and this is his best work yet. His rankings are fun and informative. His comments are fresh views on old "Hot Stove" topics. The only question is, " what took you 15 years--and please don't wait another 15 years for the next one."
A must have for any baseball fan.